This isn't some plot to turn America into a police state. It's an effort being undertaken by local, state, and federal law enforcement and security professionals to attempt to protect the public. I think the you're missing the essential counter-argument being made, which is that technological capabilities acquired and put into use by the US government have almost always been abused. The "effort being undertaken" line is easy to agree with, but please also consider that wiretap technology on our phones was also marketed in the same way, with sane-minded rhetoric asking the people involved to "understand" how this is an attempt to "protect the public". If government has already tapped private phone calls between individuals without judicial backing, what makes you think they will not use public cams against certain unwanted individuals, to say the least? I love maturity and levelheadedness when dealing with these issues, but the government has demonstrated neither in the (particularly recent) past.
America is not a police state, and will not become one very soon. Still, we are constantly discovering that our government not only can but DOES abuse any privilege you provide it with. For this reason I support monitoring only in certain closed areas like airports, and these "common sense" locations are mostly already under surveillance anyway, because there are demonstrable means by which acts of violence against public infrastructure can be detected and dealt with early.
There is no need to give the government ways to effortlessly stalk you everywhere and at all times.
You are correct of course, but the problem with software is that the foundational maths is very heavily intertwined with the technological aspects of the science, because the entire process is conceptual; i.e the end product is a Turing Machine - a piece of information. But like the Ancient Greeks, good computer scientists shy away from the dirtiness of handy-work in favor of the intellectual throne of mathematics, where we discover what is true while leaving it to others to apply that truth, perhaps with some direction.
Without mathematics (and meta-mathematics) there would be no set theory, without set theory no Computers/computational machines/TM, and without them not one line of the pretty code the author loves so much would have meaning. If some fool hacks some code snippets together to make a program then he is engaging in mathematics whether he likes it or not. His ignorance of it does not render the mathematics any less important. Slow news day.//diatribe ends here
We are more interested in the fact that you dated, rather than worked as, a Starbucks employee than in any information regarding coffee you may appear to posses. This is slashdot you see. Everything is working as per usual, nothing strange happening with the mods.
Most of the buffer overrun vulnerabilities in MS software, and software in general, are not found by inspecting stolen source code. MS programmers are nice enough to leave enough doors wide open without us bad people going to the trouble of doing all that illegal stuff.
And as pointed out by others, dissasembly is actually "illegal" according to their EULAs. This is another laughable notion that proprietary SW houses sometimes entertain..they think that when the code passes through a few lines of compiler, it somehow gets transformed into another entity. Turing machines are Turing machines you morons. If I can take apart my Boeing 777 engine and make pottery out of it, I sure as hell can scribble a little on the pretty binaries I legally bought from Bill Gates, turning them into whatever the hell I want (including the C++ nightmare they were).
In layman's terms, our subjective experiences are not capable of producing a knowledge of God. A scientifically verifiable knowledge of God, you mean. Otherwise, it philosophically amounts to atheism, because a God who is completely "unknowable" does not hold any theological grounds.
It's a grammatically correct question but we can't expect it to mean anything? Maybe, because we recognize the "bang" itself as an event, caused by other time-referential events, otherwise there would be no reasons for it to occur. Understanding the fabric of "space" alone to be in s singular state would not be so much of a problem, but thanks to einstein, we're kind of screwed. What the string-theory cowboys are trying to do (and they may well be correct) is relate this dead, timeless world of nothingness to conceptual dimensions that in contrast DID exist, or so they hope. I can never really believe that, because it's just a bunch of mathematical models that are abstract (non-physical) in nature, and so not related to reality and therefore untestable.
The link between the conceptual and the physical is very uncool.
That's pretty interesting with avalanche-effect things like libc..etc, but isn't it possible to almost effortlessly license new, and equally free (offspring) versions given GPL3, which would also require to be killed?
And no, I have nothing better to do on this fine Friday evening. Heh. Which is exactly what google is trying to say by hinting that you should take a hike, or something:)
If that happens (and it won't, aliens don't exist - we are a probabilistic anomaly in a finite universe) then religious extremism will probably lead to it being seen as Armageddon, and the others can die/go to hell for all they care. Maybe if you help the non-believers survive you will go to hell with them and be killed anyway, whilst if you die on your own you are rewarded by the cleansing of your sins. Instincts(nature) can be overridden by sufficiently strong theology/philosophy/cultural norm(nurture). They will be willing to die alone rather than with the heathen.
Nonsense! The person who called you Martina Estinova was incredibly funny and I would be his friend. You on the other hand, with your "glottal" stops, are painfully lame. Plus..German? Oh the humanity.
We all know that Linux is too complex to have evolved over time to its current state. It could only have been created by an Intelligent 'designer' You're calling Linus Torvalds stupid. Cancel or Allow?
Anyone else find it ironic that these rulers enslaved entire races of people for generations to build gigantic pyramids so that they would never be forgotten only to have grave robbers steal everything and Western archaeologists show up thousands of years later asking, "Who the fuck were you?" Is this why you post as A/C, the futility of it all?:)
I've listened to Hans over the years in lkml. He's an odd one. Really? Her boyfriend (the guy she cheated on him with) confessed to killing 8 people and might have killed 9, but he's not really sure. I'm not kidding, either. That's a little "odd" too isn't it? Usually people keep count of the murders they commit, for the sake of easy confessions at least..
Yep, that pretty much does it, except that the smaller the probability of the unlikely event is, the greater the number of random events must be to satisfy this criterion. People who believe in religion will argue that physical existence in general, and biological life especially, are so close to the infinitesimal in probability that they virtually cannot occur with what they perceive to be beauty and functional harmony, even with the size of the universe as large as we put it today (which is also not infinite at all, according to the standard model).
You can convince me, but human faith is one of those instincts that we evolved to overcome difficult questions like these. It cannot be defeated easily, certainly not with talk of infinite arbitrary events.
This seems to be a problem pretty much concerned with Christian denominations rather than monotheists in general, although all monotheists will deny "absolute/mathematical" proof in the process of considering belief in God, because as the GP said that defies the theology itself.
Elsewhere however, notably Muslim and Sabian beliefs, God provides subjective "proof" in the form of the functional yet beautiful universe, biological and otherwise, implying that the probabilities of such a vast number of events leading to this current physical state (as opposed to all other that would be less "perfect") is very low. When the probability of something is low, and indeed the first living cell formation from chemicals was extremely unlikely to form, God's unseen involvement becomes necessary.
Now I don't believe in all of that, but I do believe that the gospel in particular was very unlucky from a scholarly point of view, in that it was heavily edited, translated, re-written and blatantly fabricated in places due to a long cut-off period from the mysterious Jesus to the date of writing, making it easy as a target for attacks that lead to the Church in modern times adopting a feeble stance concerning religion and arguments for it. Abstraction where abstraction is NOT due have resulted, some very clear passages are re-interpreted and anything involving science, no matter how unambiguously stated, is made obscure by the clergy in an attempt to avoid Galileo-like scenarios.
With more original scriptures, the followers find themselves already reading "abstract" material (which, if the religion is false, must have been written by a single prodigious literary genius) that was known by the ancients to have meanings appropriate for it's original audience (and in the case of Islam, all later audiences).
Summary: In some monotheist theologies not everything has to be taken blindly, but some "proofs" rely on arguments resolved only through probabilistic reasoning, and which therefore are very debatable. Otherwise, their God would have died along with Nietzsche's.
(The CEO) said he hopes it will replace just about any cutting device you can think of, from a big metal saw to a precise surgical blade... identify friend or foe during combat... ..I'm a friend, can we skip the "identification" step please? I'd rather be hit by a stray bullet than get "surgically" spliced like sushi. Thanks, I love you.
Hows this: The word "happened yet" is irrelevant unless you are talking about a specific frame of reference to which the event relates, so although the fact that any effect (including the visual) only "happens to us" at the speed of light, the event has actually occurred for other bodies whose motion can be defined in relation to ours... i.e we can calculate what happens even before it happens to us, we don't have to wait for anything.
Now add spooky-action-at-a-distance, alternative realism and some freaky math and we have a real I-can-shock-you post.
Slashdot Mirror
Forget mithral, you're gonna need a mithril helmet to protect you from the stuff that's going to hammer your head now! Darn trolls.
America is not a police state, and will not become one very soon. Still, we are constantly discovering that our government not only can but DOES abuse any privilege you provide it with. For this reason I support monitoring only in certain closed areas like airports, and these "common sense" locations are mostly already under surveillance anyway, because there are demonstrable means by which acts of violence against public infrastructure can be detected and dealt with early.
There is no need to give the government ways to effortlessly stalk you everywhere and at all times.
You are correct of course, but the problem with software is that the foundational maths is very heavily intertwined with the technological aspects of the science, because the entire process is conceptual; i.e the end product is a Turing Machine - a piece of information. But like the Ancient Greeks, good computer scientists shy away from the dirtiness of handy-work in favor of the intellectual throne of mathematics, where we discover what is true while leaving it to others to apply that truth, perhaps with some direction.
//diatribe ends here
Without mathematics (and meta-mathematics) there would be no set theory, without set theory no Computers/computational machines/TM, and without them not one line of the pretty code the author loves so much would have meaning. If some fool hacks some code snippets together to make a program then he is engaging in mathematics whether he likes it or not. His ignorance of it does not render the mathematics any less important. Slow news day.
We are more interested in the fact that you dated, rather than worked as, a Starbucks employee than in any information regarding coffee you may appear to posses. This is slashdot you see. Everything is working as per usual, nothing strange happening with the mods.
In California, they don't use robots, they use the Governor.
Most of the buffer overrun vulnerabilities in MS software, and software in general, are not found by inspecting stolen source code. MS programmers are nice enough to leave enough doors wide open without us bad people going to the trouble of doing all that illegal stuff.
And as pointed out by others, dissasembly is actually "illegal" according to their EULAs. This is another laughable notion that proprietary SW houses sometimes entertain..they think that when the code passes through a few lines of compiler, it somehow gets transformed into another entity. Turing machines are Turing machines you morons. If I can take apart my Boeing 777 engine and make pottery out of it, I sure as hell can scribble a little on the pretty binaries I legally bought from Bill Gates, turning them into whatever the hell I want (including the C++ nightmare they were).
Chuck Norris: Instantly repairing your pink-matter since God made pheromones.
The link between the conceptual and the physical is very uncool.
That's pretty interesting with avalanche-effect things like libc..etc, but isn't it possible to almost effortlessly license new, and equally free (offspring) versions given GPL3, which would also require to be killed?
Good. One or two pieces of FOSS are brutalized, OSS in general lives on. I think I am missing something (no sarcasm).
If that happens (and it won't, aliens don't exist - we are a probabilistic anomaly in a finite universe) then religious extremism will probably lead to it being seen as Armageddon, and the others can die/go to hell for all they care. Maybe if you help the non-believers survive you will go to hell with them and be killed anyway, whilst if you die on your own you are rewarded by the cleansing of your sins. Instincts(nature) can be overridden by sufficiently strong theology/philosophy /cultural norm(nurture). They will be willing to die alone rather than with the heathen.
Before you buy, do you know that you can't copy-paste text? I love gadgets, but this is really an insult.
Nonsense! The person who called you Martina Estinova was incredibly funny and I would be his friend. You on the other hand, with your "glottal" stops, are painfully lame. Plus..German? Oh the humanity.
[insert grammar-Nazism joke here]
Yep, that pretty much does it, except that the smaller the probability of the unlikely event is, the greater the number of random events must be to satisfy this criterion. People who believe in religion will argue that physical existence in general, and biological life especially, are so close to the infinitesimal in probability that they virtually cannot occur with what they perceive to be beauty and functional harmony, even with the size of the universe as large as we put it today (which is also not infinite at all, according to the standard model).
You can convince me, but human faith is one of those instincts that we evolved to overcome difficult questions like these. It cannot be defeated easily, certainly not with talk of infinite arbitrary events.
This seems to be a problem pretty much concerned with Christian denominations rather than monotheists in general, although all monotheists will deny "absolute/mathematical" proof in the process of considering belief in God, because as the GP said that defies the theology itself.
Elsewhere however, notably Muslim and Sabian beliefs, God provides subjective "proof" in the form of the functional yet beautiful universe, biological and otherwise, implying that the probabilities of such a vast number of events leading to this current physical state (as opposed to all other that would be less "perfect") is very low. When the probability of something is low, and indeed the first living cell formation from chemicals was extremely unlikely to form, God's unseen involvement becomes necessary.
Now I don't believe in all of that, but I do believe that the gospel in particular was very unlucky from a scholarly point of view, in that it was heavily edited, translated, re-written and blatantly fabricated in places due to a long cut-off period from the mysterious Jesus to the date of writing, making it easy as a target for attacks that lead to the Church in modern times adopting a feeble stance concerning religion and arguments for it. Abstraction where abstraction is NOT due have resulted, some very clear passages are re-interpreted and anything involving science, no matter how unambiguously stated, is made obscure by the clergy in an attempt to avoid Galileo-like scenarios.
With more original scriptures, the followers find themselves already reading "abstract" material (which, if the religion is false, must have been written by a single prodigious literary genius) that was known by the ancients to have meanings appropriate for it's original audience (and in the case of Islam, all later audiences).
Summary: In some monotheist theologies not everything has to be taken blindly, but some "proofs" rely on arguments resolved only through probabilistic reasoning, and which therefore are very debatable. Otherwise, their God would have died along with Nietzsche's.
When you are overclocking for 5% performance gains on synthetic benchmarks there is no time for commas.
He said knowledge of telescopes, not photoshop. You are drooling for the wrong reasons.
Ah, an I-can-shock-you post. Can I join in?
Hows this: The word "happened yet" is irrelevant unless you are talking about a specific frame of reference to which the event relates, so although the fact that any effect (including the visual) only "happens to us" at the speed of light, the event has actually occurred for other bodies whose motion can be defined in relation to ours... i.e we can calculate what happens even before it happens to us, we don't have to wait for anything.
Now add spooky-action-at-a-distance, alternative realism and some freaky math and we have a real I-can-shock-you post.
I read it as Firstpost Get the Brains and was about to throw up on my keyboard.